http://content.cricinfo.com/ipl2009/content/current/story/401373.html
Jacob Oram is prepared to stand down from the New Zealand Test side to extend his career as an allrounder in the more lucrative limited overs formats. He believes that the physical demands on allrounders are such that many will be forced to give up one form of the game.
Certainly the amount of injuries happening highlights the stress and strains of being an allrounder in the modern era. Crammed international schedules and the explosion of the high-intensity 20-over format has exacted a tremendous physical toll on cricket's leading allrounders. Oram, Flintoff, Bravo, Watson and Noffke have all spent extended periods on the sidelines in the past year. Flintoff is now reinjured while others are making tentative steps towards comebacks.
In a time where the number of games played rises each passing year (and is only going to intensify) and the number of injuries (seemingly) increasing; are allrounders really "unsustainable"? Or can something be done to extend their careers; do they need to reduce their workloads if they are to have longer careers? Should, as Oram suggests, there be more rotation of allrounder players? Will we see yet more specialists focusing on only one format? And do cricketers need to start saying no to the big money in side tournaments like the IPL and take more personal responsibility over their Test and ODI careers to ensure longevity?
Thoughts? etc.
Answer by → Mitch ←
Well maybe not so much the all rounders that bowl spin because there is obviously less physical demand on their bodies.
But being an all rounder who is consistently bowling quick and being relied on to perform with the bat is certainly too physically straining on the body to play for a long period of time without obtaining some sort of injury.
I don't know if it is just because all of Australia's good all rounders were injured but i noticed we have been relying on part timers (D.Hussey, Clarke etc.) a lot to get through some overs. As has SA through Duminy so this could be a common trend with teams now although a good allrounder is useful (Australia are still using Hopes i guess)
Sitting out of the IPL would be the ideal thing to do because a lot of countries have played a lot of cricket (all forms) in the past few months and the players surely need a break.....but money usually does the talking and decision makings now.
Answer by Never fear, KiwiJoey's here!
I do believe allrounders are being phased out of the test match game. Test matches are becoming a specialist only arena. So much is expected of an allrounder (in ALL forns of the game), they are expected to both bat well and bowl well in every game. lt just is not going to happen, the expectations are too high. They are therefore being called on in all four innings of a test match to perform. Specialist bowlers get to relax while their team is batting and specialist batsmen 'relax' when out in the field, playing to a lower intensity. Allrounders do not get this opportunity.
This takes a toll on their body. If this is happening test match in, test match out, year in, year out then the body is not getting time for the natural healing and recovery process to work its magic. Therefore injuries are going to happen.
All-rounders are more suited to the limited overs formats of the game (i.e. ODI and T20). While they are still expected to perform well both when batting and bowling, they still only have to perform well for one day (or in the case of T20, an afternoon or evening) in every two or three. They have time between games to rest and recover.
If, after a few years of playing all three forms of the game (which most emerging players will aim to do), an all-rounder finds themself spending more time on the physio's table than on the paddock, they seriously should consider dropping the test form of the game to concentrate solely on limited overs games. This will give their body more time to recover between games (and a natural part of the aging process is that recovery takes longer as the player gets older), which will add several years to their career.
I think more cricketers have, given away the test form of the game to concentrate on limited overs matches the other way round, and this would be for the exact reason l have brought up. This trend is only going to gather momentum. In a few years time, allrounders in test cricket may well be a rarity.
Answer by Dougie
I dont think they are unsustainable, people like Watson are simply unlucky with the number of injuries they end up suffering. Many teams these days are trying really hard to find an all-rounder and sure, a good all-rounder can offer a team so much. However, many of the so called all-rounders these days arent actually that good and wouldnt make their respective teams simply as a bowler or a batter. This means that teams have a player who really isnt that good playing in the team and it can really hurt as the opposition team can go after that player. Sure, a good all-rounder is one of the most valuable acquisitions a team can make, however the player should be able to make the side simply through wither batting or bowling. Having a mediocre guy in the team who bats and bowls a bit simply doesnt help the team. Sorry, didnt really answer the question, which is a good one.
Answer by matt
to be much cricket is killing allrounders
Answer by The Oracle
Yay! A Question from my Mistress!!!
Tremendous pressure, in terms of workload, is always imposed on genuine all-rounders. Batsmen are expected to bat for long periods, and are trained to do so. Bowlers are expected to bowl long spells, and receive the requisite training for that. All players are expected to field, and so are trained mentally and physically for this.
An all-rounder is expected to perform all of these tasks, and to perform them to the same standards expected of a specialist batsman or bowler. Bowling especially is hard work, and requires a great amount of physical effort. With more and more international matches, and the rise in limited overs cricket, more expectation is being placed on the key players in a limited overs side; namely the ones who can perform more than just one task: the all-rounders.
And the emphasis in Test cricket also has shifted. Back in the 1980's, most sides deployed just four front line specialist bowlers, with one or two of the batsmen chipping in here and there. Now most teams prefer to have five genuine front-line bowlers, partially due to the need for more positive results in Test cricket, and also due to more matches lasting the distance.
Furthermore, there is more fear of bowlers breaking down, due to the increased workloads and pressures on them. So as not to be left with only three bowlers, teams now pick five, to give a captain more options, and to cover for any potential injuries. But to ensure that the batting remains equally as strong, one of those front-line bowlers also needs to be a front-line batsman. And they are expected to participate in all forms of the game: Tests, ODI's, T20I's. All-rounders can't really be "Test specialists" or "ODI specialists" Their role is to be multi-functional.
But do they actually play more now? In 2008, England played 36 international matches (Tests, ODI's and T20I's combined). They batted for a total of 2925 overs, and for just over 405 hours. They bowled 2971 overs. If we argue that an all-rounder should bat for at least one fifth of the time at the crease, then the all-rounder would bat for around 80 hours in the year. And if he were to bowl one fifth of the overs, then he would be expected to deliver around 600 overs.
Is that too big a workload? Not necessarily, players have batted for longer periods, and bowled more overs throughout a calender year than that. The problem facing the modern day cricketer isn't actually the amount of cricket they play. It's the intensity of all the games, and the high-profile of them. The biggest strain on them is having to be at their optimum all of the time. Wasim Akram was a leading all-rounder during the 1990's. He also played county cricket for Lancashire, and did a sterling job. Yet Lancashire did not see the full blooded Wasim roaring in all of the time. He reserved his best for Pakistan, and important games for Lancashire (he was particularly devastating in Cup matches). Wasim could not have maintained his career for as long as he did had he expended all his energies in every game he played.
Now international cricketers play very little domestic cricket, so don't have the chance to "wind down" whilst still maintaining match fitness. They have to perform at their peak in every game they play. And with limited recovery time between matches, this places huge stress on the player both physically and mentally. A batsman gets time off when fielding; although tiring, they don't put the same physical exertion into it. A bolwer has time out when his side is batting, as he doesn't have to bat for as long as the specialists. The all-rounder is always involved in the game, so doesn't get the "break within a game" that the specialist batter or bowler does.
Over recent years we have increasingly seen players choosing one form or another of the game, to preserve their career. Shane Warne, a specialist bowler, gave up ODI's. Chris Cairns, an all-rounder, gave up Tests. Scott Styris, another New Zealand all-rounder, also gave up Tests. All cited the volume of cricket as their reasons, and they chose to concentrate on the areas of the game where they were strongest, to prevent their careers from becoming even shorter.
Being an all-rounder in the modern game may very well be unsustainable. Certainly if players are expected to play in every single game. A lot of talk has been made about "squad rotation". All very well in principle, But England are hardly likely to want to rotate andrew Flintoff, or New Zealand Jacob Oram. If they're fit, then they'll play. teams don't leave out their best player, especially as every match is important.
Partially to blame for the importance of every single match are the ICC rankings. Whereas before a team could go 3-0 up in a 5 match ODI series, and then choose to "rest" some of their players, now, due to the rankings system, each game counts towards points on that table. So no match is effectively "dead". The rankings may only be a paper exercise, with no monetary value, but for the marketing men, the difference between being ranked third or first is immense. so each match counts, and the key players have to play in as many as possible.
Which would be all very well were a side blessed with two or three genuine first choice all-rounders. However, all-rounders are a rare commodity; and cannot easily be replaced. England hunted for years for an adequate replacement for Botham, before they found Flintoff (and I've already told you my views on that elsewhere).. That decade long search demonstrates how unique these players are. If they weren't so rare, then the all-rounder position could possibly be rotated, and less pressure put on those players.
So as the amount of high profile matches intensifies, we will see more players, all-rounders in particular, choosing to concentrate on just one form of the game. Some will become Test specialists, but more probably will focus on the shorter form of the game, especially T20. That is where the money is, and the IPL has proved that many players will put financial gain ahead of their career (for instance Andrew "Numbskull" Flintoff. Ten operations in eight years! Will he ever learn?
Should they take more personal responsibility, and start saying no the big money tournaments to preserve their Test and ODI longevity?
The obvious answer is yes, the more time they get to rest and recuperate the better. But also no, perhaps they shoudl take the money whilst it is on offer. A cricketers life is finite, an allrounders especially so. They could decide to forego on the big bucks, but in the long run, they won't get the same financial rewards. So it's a difficult juggling act for them. International cricket has made them the big stars, that therefore makes them a big draw, and as a result means they can attract more money. But is doesn't give the financial rewards. So they need to play international cricket, to get the profile, to get the money.
All-rounders are sustainable, but probably only in the short-term. More work needs to be done around the fixture list. The IPL needs to be accepted by everyone as part of the cricketing calender, and planned into it accordingly. The ICC should scrap the World test Championship, that is actually killing Test cricket by forcing teams to play each other home and away every five years. Individual boards should be given back the responsibility for choosing who they want to play, and when. That may actually help countries like Bangladesh, who will be able to develop at their own pace, rather than having to endure wallopings against the big boys as a matter of routine.
And the amount of meaningless ODI cricket needs to be cut down on. There is no need for a 5 or 7 match series. 3 is perfectly adequate. And with the Champions Trophy being played every two years, and the World Cup every four, there is no need for any more sily triangular or quadrangular tournaments. If a sensible approach is used, all cricketers can hope to enjoy a decent length of career.
Although methinks Jacob Oram is using the workload as a bit of an excuse for jumoing ship. He's always had an appalling injury record. Some things just need to be put down to the frailties of the human body.
Answer by Wayne is fecal matter with arms
omg too big answers here
Answer by Janos H
The most interesting and important conclusion that I was able to draw from all this:
"Cricket blah very important game blah I am very important blah I am very intelligent blah season blah player blah cricket cricket blah blah."
Answer by Punjabi "~ਪੰਜਾਬੀ~"
I'm not gonna answer big or complicated. who cares for allrounders and why should anyone ? they chose to play in IPL and of course they need to start saying "no" but money is more important than national interest for an individual, isn't it ?
i don't know why you all are behind IPL, no one can force anyone in this world, let them all go to hell, stop bothering , you are not getting anything outta it ?
you can't have your cake and eat it too, defame the people involved and not IPL, IPL is not a charity ! i hope it is clear !
Answer by arsalan_kashi
yes ! heavy work load make their life difficult.. coaches or strategy makers have to find a way to use them...
Add your own answer in the comments!
Orignal From: Allrounders 'Unsustainable' In The Modern Game?
Post a Comment